About your Search

20121226
20130103
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
>> did the pentagon have review? >> no, didn't have fop once i'm retired from active due any i don't have to submit it to the pentagon unless i use classified information. so i avoided using any classified information but a lot of stuff was declassified right after the war. a lot of stuff was a matter of public record. so i had a great deal of material. the best thing i had was this, any war i ever fought most of instructions were sent by message back and forth. so you have hard copy record of every decision made. because of where we are today most of the orders and instructions are seventh back and forth by secured telephone. it became apparent that we're not going have a record of the decisions made unless we have a record ourselves. any time i had a conversation i wrote down what i said and what is being said to me. i had someone in there who would write down every time i made a decision and he would log it into a private journal that we kept of every decision that was happening during the war. if it had not been through that the book would not be written. >> where are those 3,0
part of some last-second deal. hit the defense department. but the pentagon's real problem is not those cuts, but the ones that are going to be coming over the next decade. we talked to military contractors, top officials at the pentagon. they see a long period of downward decline. that after the war in afghanistan, there's going to be a period of austerity. they're calling it -- they have a term around the pentagon, a very graphic self-amputation as they cut back over the years. and this was one of the reasons that president obama had, at the top of his short list, the former republican senator, still a republican, chuck hagel of nebraska. he's somebody who's talked about the pentagon as being bloated, had very specific ideas about how to cut it. but mike, sam, the table, we're hearing that that trial balloon has been popped. that senator hagel has a possibility for secretary of defense, has really lost a lot of altitude. and what they discovered was, there's not a natural constituency for him. republicans, as you guys know, have fought with him over the years. he was against the war i
. that became more and more until the publication of "the pentagon papers." that was a gradual growth come a difference, between the media the new york times" and the administration, and that continues until the state. there is an oscillation between the administration and "the times" depending on the administration. that difference opened up cordially there, and it continued to. the skepticism to the vietnam war, and watergate, which is mostly "washington post" storage, increased trade gradually we have what we have today, an adversarial right fox, adversarial left, msnbc, and cnn, which is trying to be "the new york times," when nobody wants to see a non- adversarial. "the times" is a two-section newspaper, a term that "the times" does not like any more. the editor -- when you use in it, they get a little bit squeamish. some of you i should probably it, one of my sources -- took a great deal of reading the, and interviews. "the times" is generous in giving me access, letting the interview them. mostly, i got this through approaching them and asking them, and one led to the other. approa
.s. ambassador and three other americans were killed. our pentagon correspondent chris lawrence is joining us now with the findings. >> this new report spreads the blame for that attack. blaming intel, state, even the pentagon to some degree, saying there was no plan in place to rescue americans there. a new senate report says the state department should have shut down the benghazi mission before the attack that killed four americans. it chastised officials for relying on local militia to guard the front gate. >> the terrorists essentially walked into the compound, virtually unimpeded. >> senators say the state department missed plenty of red flags. a rocket propelled glen nate hit the red cross in may. a bomb exploded in june. another rpg hit the british ambassador's convoy, prompting the uk to close its mission. senators questioned how much more the state department needed to see before officials realized they didn't have enough security. >> we've got to close this facility because we can't protect american personnel in benghazi. >> reporter: the report also condemned communication failures. li
for the pentagon. they didn't and that is why we are where we are. now, the scaled back deal is what you are saying the mini deal is what vice president biden is still trying to convince some skeptical liberal democrats in the senate to sign on to? >> absolutely right. they believed in president obama out on the campaign trail saying let's make these people of upper income above $250,000 pay more taxes. they were not happy with the negotiation because the republicans obviously don't want to raise taxes on anybody but if they are going to give the president who won reelection more revenue as part of a balance deal, if you will, they were willing to go up to $450,000 and so the vice president is eceptionly say -- essentially saying to liberal democrats who want to raise taxes on more people this is a good deal and keeps us from going off the fiscal cliff. you need to get onboard with this and h help me pass this across the finish line. there may be a little bit of stroking of some democratic egos in the caucus meeting to try to get this done. >> mike emanuel, thank you. as we look live at the ohio cl
that? and i want to say a word about sequestration. sequestration is about to kick in. the pentagon and our defense department is like a giant oil tanker. you got to turn it around in a very difficult and slow manner, because they have to make plans and they have to have contingencies -- procurement of weapons, have to do all the things that are necessary to make sure our men and women who are serving in the military are the best trained, best equipped and most professional in the world, which they are. but we're looking at sequestration here when the department of defense says it will decimate our adilt -- ability to defend this nation. shouldn't the president of the united states be concerned about that? but what is his own secretary of defense is saying and what his own chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, his selection, is saying. instead, we kind of joke around and tell people they're going to be here fear new year's eve. that's not the way to lead this nation. so i come to the floor and say to my colleagues, we need to get this done. we all know that we need to get this done
, so do have the debt ceiling fight coming up. when you say that it faces and, you expect the pentagon to say we would just hold everything? certainly years, serving months ahead of time. they have to plan on how many people to have in their workforce -- in the force, recruiting. you cannot turn on a dime, like a huge oil tanker. >> john, we will focus on folks that we did not know who are here. we will come right back. don't go away. take five minutes. >> this is just -- >> we saw senators mccain and 11 decide they will come back in a couple of minutes. as we wait, back to something that took place earlier this morning outside the capital. -- the capitol. >> i want to thank you for being here to call on house republicans not to drop the ball on the middle-class. also for the house to show up for work, right? the president is down at the white house, senator harkin and his colleagues are here. they are out on a paid vacation right now. boehner walked out of the allegations with the present and then he walked out of the house and tell all members to go home while we are four days away f
that i do not view this as the fall of the pentagon, but rather, an indication that the department of defense has insufficient assets to respond to attacks at this time -- of this type. let me comment on the administration's response to the attacks. this was so obviously a terrorist attack that i remain perplexed that the administration's officials gave such conflicting responses to questions from reporters about whether or not it was a terrorist attack. this was clearly not a peaceful protest that somehow got out of hand and evolved into a violent attack. instead, it clearly was a terrorist attack. and this, unfortunately, has been typical of what the committee has found over the last few years in our investigations of radical islamic extremism and the threat of the perversion of a peaceful religion practiced by the vast majority of muslims. the threat of the perversion of that etiology to attack our country remains a great threat. and yet, the administration repeatedly has refused to name the threat that we have faced. it was evident in the department of all land security -- home
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)